NYC Mayor Bloomberg donates big time to promote unnatural “marriage”

A blatteroon at the Strib, the ultra-liberal newspaper of my native place, Minneapolis, had a nutty about the Knights of Columbus contribution money in support of the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.  How dare they!  How dare those outsiders get involved in local politics!

Will the STrib have a nutty over this too? This is from the enemy paper, the St. Paul Pioneer Press (not really less liberal than the Star and Sickle.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is donating $125,000 to defeat the constitutional gay marriage ban on Minnesota’s November ballot.

Bloomberg announced the donation Monday, Oct. 22, on his website. He has made similarly large donations in three other states where the definition of marriage is on the ballot.

Bloomberg’s donation is one of the single largest individual contributions to Minnesotans United for All Families, the group opposed to the amendment. His so-called “challenge grant” lets the campaign urge other donors to match the donation dollar for dollar.

Bloomberg was a vocal backer of the successful effort to legalize gay marriage in New York state in 2011.

Minnesotans United is seeking a “no” vote on the amendment, which if passed would insert the state’s existing gay marriage ban into the state constitution.

Bloomberg also pledged a total of $325,000 to groups backing ballot initiatives that would legalize gay marriage in Maine and uphold it in Washington. He announced a $250,000 contribution to a Maryland gay marriage initiative earlier this month.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg donates big time to promote unnatural “marriage”
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, One Man & One Woman and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to NYC Mayor Bloomberg donates big time to promote unnatural “marriage”

  1. revs96 says:

    The money would have been better spent if he just gave it to me.

  2. backtothefuture says:

    The mayor is out of control. Trans fat, sodium and pepsi are bad for you, but unnatural sex which brings about diseases(and damnation) is good.

  3. TKS says:

    Just saw on our local news here in Washington State that Bloomberg has given a quarter of a million dollars to pass ref 74 which wants to redefine marriage. And there are awful ads that gag me so much I have to turn them off. Stay out of our business, Bloomberg!

  4. prairiecatholic88 says:

    As a Minnesotan who will be voting YES on Nov. 6, I agree with TKS. Mind your own beeswax, Bloomberg!

  5. wanda says:

    Keep your filthy money out of my Maryland, Mr. Bloomberg. I am voting against un-natural ‘NOT’ Marriage.

  6. Johnno says:

    This will just keep going on and on. Even if they lose, they’ll keep coming back. If the people don’t vote the way they want, they’ll get the courts to force the change.

    Best solution is to get government and courts out of marriage altogether. It’s the Church’s business and the Church does not need permission from the government or their paper stamps to have a man and woman enter into a life long covenant before God.

  7. Michelle F says:

    Around here we call these folks “carpetbaggers.” Every state should make it illegal for non-residents to contribute financially, or an any other way, to in-state campaigns.

  8. Johnno, I agree with you, the Church should simply stop recognizing state marriages at the rate this is continuing. The gov’t is using power it doesn’t have corruptly.

  9. Gail F says:

    He spent $450,000 of his own money to defeat marriage amendments in other states? Why? I mean, what is in it for hm that he would spend almost half a million dollars? I find it hard to believe that it is simply his thinking it’s a matter of right and wrong.

  10. Bryan Boyle says:

    Bloomberg is just plain evil. His list of interference in outside (ie out of the Rotten Apple) society is as wide as his tinkering inside the confines of Sodom on the Hudson.

    Besides the nanny state control over transfat, big sodas, smoking in public (and he’s been trying to outlaw it in personal cars, homes, etc..), he’s interfered with law enforcement in other states (NJ, for instance, sending his goons to monitor (yeah, they’re moslems, but still) mosques), making straw firearms purchases in Virginia and then suing the Commonwealth to try and force them to change their laws, and generally ‘creatively’ stretching the law when it suits him (He had his hand-picked city council strike down the 2-term limit for mayors so he could run for a third term…). He’s nothing more than a leftist thug (when he couldn’t get the Demoncrat machine in NYC to nominate him for mayor in 2001, he changed his registration to the Republican party and spread around beaucoup bucks to get the nomination; Guiliani was, at the time, not eligible to run for a third term and didn’t think it proper to lobby/twist arms to have the law changed…Bloomie has no compunction doing what he wants…

    He’s just a plain obnoxious self-serving billionaire with a superiority complex…

  11. AnAmericanMother says:

    Bryan,
    Exactly. Bloomberg has also interfered in Georgia’s firearms laws, in the process slandering (and doing his best to bankrupt) a very reputable outdoors store here. I have bought several firearms there, and they are meticulous in adhering to all the federal and state laws, cross-checking each required form and having it countersigned by the manager.
    If somebody sends a straw purchaser who lies to the dealer and is willing to perjure himself on the 4473, there isn’t much that a firearms dealer can do unless he knows the parties involved.
    Bloomie needs to tend to his own knitting, it isn’t like NYC is heaven on earth or anything . . .

  12. DisturbedMary says:

    Bloomberg thinks smoking is a deadly mortal sin and so is salt but homosexuality is not. My conclusion is that in his very, very private life he doesn’t smoke and doesn’t use salt.

  13. Sissy says:

    Johnno said: “Best solution is to get government and courts out of marriage altogether. It’s the Church’s business”

    It is the Church’s business, but it isn’t JUST the Church’s business. The state has a legitimate interest in encouraging and supporting marriage. Marriage promotes social stability, protects children, ensures the orderly intergenerational transfer of property, and so forth. There are a whole host of social concerns which are directly affected by marriage. And by marriage, I mean “one man married to one woman.” All of society is affected by this issue, and the state has an important and legitimate role in regulating marriage. Don’t be so quick to surrender the field to those who wish to destroy our society and culture.

  14. wmeyer says:

    It is the Church’s business, but it isn’t JUST the Church’s business.

    I am at least somewhat sympathetic to Johnno’s thoughts in the matter. There is a tendency for government to think that it owns whatever it touches, hence they believe they can make the definition of marriage whatever fashion and their warm fuzzy feelings suggest. Once that happens, we must live with the complication that there is a very large societal disagreement about what marriage is.

  15. Sissy says:

    wmeyer, I agree with you that we, the people, cannot allow leftist policies to change the definition of marriage, but the very real benefit of marriage to society is a proper concern of government. There are proper functions for government, and regulation of marriage is one of them. The Church has no legal authority to prevent adult-child “marriages”, for instance. We need state regulation; we citizens must ensure that the government doesn’t change the definition to include unnatural unions. Barring that, there is no reason the Church and State cannot continue to partner in promoting and encouraging marriage as has been the case for centuries.

  16. AnnAsher says:

    I agree with Johnno. I think it only becomes an issue for the state if the state chooses to step into the gaps left as a result of children born out of marriage, divorce, etc. As someone who has worked in social work and whose husband continues to do so, I am convinced that government social programs do zero ultimate good.

    Secondly, while we talk about Bloomberg and Starbucks why are we not talking about Amazon and it’s CEO Jeff Bezos ? Or did I miss that post?

  17. AnnAsher says:

    I agree with Johnno. I think it only becomes an issue for the state if the state chooses to step into the gaps left as a result of children born out of marriage, divorce, etc. As someone who has worked in social work and whose husband continues to do so, I am convinced that government social programs do zero ultimate good.

    Secondly, while we talk about Bloomberg and Starbucks why are we not talking about Amazon and it’s CEO Jeff Bezos ? Or did I miss that post?

    And, kudos to Disturbed Mary

  18. Sissy says:

    AnnAsher: I provided legal representation for foster children in one of the poorest cities in the US, so I know whereof I speak. The government has always had a legitimate interest in keeping children out of that kind of situation to the degree possible. In our society, when parents fail, the state has to step in. The state interest has nothing to do with “social programs”. Children raised by a mother and father do better in school, resulting in a better educated, better- employed populace. They commit fewer crimes, they suffer less from mental health problems. They are healthier. On nearly every measure you can think of, children raised by a mother and father in an intact home cause less trouble for the government and do more to contribute to a stable, prosperous society. That is the “legitimate state interest” I am talking about, and it has been recognized by courts time out of mind. I worked in the “projects” where children are normally not raised in intact homes with a married mother and father. There is nothing you can tell me about that situation – I’ve seen it all. Married parents would have helped those children, and the state recognizes that. There is zero chance state governments are going to step aside and allow the social disruption that would follow any surrender of secular marriage regulation. It’s a complete non-starter.

  19. The Masked Chicken says:

    “And by marriage, I mean “one man married to one woman.”

    True, but the government may NOT mean that. Only the Church can define what marriage is. Once It has defined it, then it becomes the responsibility of the state to support and encourage it. The problem, today, is that the government can completely ignore the wishes of the people in what it does and the political process is so screwed up that there is very little someone not in a seat of power can do about it. Look at what happened in New York, where same-sex marriage was recognized by law despite the fact the the people of the State were massively against it.

    The Chicken

  20. wmeyer says:

    True, but the government may NOT mean that. Only the Church can define what marriage is.

    Would that it were that simple, Chicken. If the Church defines marriage and does not define divorce, can the state do so? There is a long history of overlap between Church and state, and it complicates this area, among others.

  21. PostCatholic says:

    I put a little Maryland money into the Maryland initiative–can’t afford a Bloomberg-level contribution. Don’t get the idea that everyone favoring Question 6 is from out of state.

    Sissy, I have a sister and a sister-in-law with two children between them, growing up in a two-parent suburban household with copious resources of love, attention, and money. I know dozens of families with same-sex parents whose children are excelling in school. I would imagine the benefits you state accrue to society for children who grow up with “a mother and a father” actually accrue to two-parent households, because anecdotal experience suggests very little difference on those scores. I’m not saying that children of same-sex unions do not have their own problems (particularly around identity) but I’d be very surprised if there is empirical evidence that they are more likely to cause trouble for government.

  22. dominic1955 says:

    Sissy,

    The State does have a legitimate interest in marriage, properly called. In history, it was generally the support of what the Church decides in the matter. What the State has now (and I’m talking in the last 200 years or so) allocated to itself are the powers condemned by Pius IX and other popes in the past. The State should basically support and ratify what the Church decides, this is the ideal and what would truly be in the State’s best interest.

    As such, considering the de-facto situation we are in, the State probably shouldn’t get out of the “marriage business” because we aren’t a Catholic country. The natural unions of non-Catholics are still naturally better off than semi-long term (a few years) relationships or random liaisons that produce bastards who are then basically condemned (as you rightly point out) to a life of disadvantage. In this way, it is best the State maintains some sort of officialdom when it comes to ordering marriage.

    Other recent developments in this country that were extremely poor choices by the State (for itself and society at large) were the removal of practically all legal opposition to “no-fault” divorce and in much more recent years, the push to make same-sex “marriage” legal. Removing all legal barriers to divorce have basically undercut the social stability of the State’s role in marriage. Easy come, easy go-marriage in the eyes of many is little different than a semi-long term relationship. There might be some hurdles to jump if one wants to get out of it, but there is nothing objectively holding it together. It makes it seem even more so when the few legal hurdles that were up before, the societal scorn of such a decision etc. are all pretty much gone.

    Gay “marriage” is just a farce that further trivializes marriage. If two guys/gals can get “married”, who is to say that any “relationship” someone can come up with is not subject to the same legal protections/rights? If a sodomitical relationship can be called “marriage” and anyone can get divorced for any willy-nilly reason, then we just as well stick a fork in it. But we know that in reality, this is not so-its just legal fictions foisted on us by radical apparatchiks.

    When you say that there is “zero chance” that state governments are going to step aside and allow the social disruption that would follow surrender of secular marriage regulation, I would not be so sure. They will not abolish it or ban it, but they constantly undermine it by the enormities they create to abuse justice, law, and right reason. Also, depending upon who gains the reigns of government, there may come a day in which the societal value of traditional marriage is no longer valued, the thinking being that any situation is just as good as another. The child raised by two gay men, by a single woman, by a mother and father, by State institutions all turn out equally good and if you don’t agree with that, you can get in line for the next train.

  23. The Masked Chicken says:

    “If the Church defines marriage and does not define divorce, can the state do so?”

    No. Divorce does not really exist (and the Church has said this) except as a concession to pre-Resurrection mankind . Now, to see something that does not exist is an hallucination and to act on that hallucination is insanity. A government that recognizes divorce must, eventually, fall since it acts against itself.

    The Chicken

  24. AnnAsher says:

    If it were a matter today of our government recognizing and defending God’s definition of marriage, I would agree that the state has an interest. But our “state” doesn’t limit itself to that interest. It instead decides to supersede God. Therein lies my issue. I mention social programs because they seem to naturally follow once the government/state decides to get involved. First abortion was legal, then there are tax dollars for abortion. First there was government school then it was mandatory, then there are taxes to pay for forced education. Plus, once the schools had the kids they decided they were also responsible for before and after school care. First there are vaccines manufactured on government grants, then the government feels the need to provide them. First there were food subsidies, now there are at least 3 or 4 programs for food assistance (essentially) over lapping each other. When the government gives benefits to marriage it also feels it has the right to set standards and limits and involve itself in family life. We had become wards of a nanny state.

  25. wmeyer says:

    AnnAsher: This endlessly increasing intrusion into our lives is why I have for a few years characterized our government as a stage 4 cancer. It seems nothing short of death of the Republic will stop it. The big disagreement between the two parties is at what rate the cancer can grow.

  26. Johnno says:

    Sissy:

    I can think of many reasons why the government getting out of marriage altogether is good.

    – We’ll have one less hot topic to uselessly argue over every election time.
    – The State cannot then enforce anyone or any institutions to adopt its definition of marriage.
    – No institution or business or charity or orphanage or foster program has to worry about stupid lawsuits or government pressure or lack of federal funding to rightfully discriminate against homosexuals.
    – The courts don’t have to waste time officiating divorces. People will have to work out their own relationship problems, and when the nanny state isn’t there with mother judge to make decisions for them I believe they’ll be more inclined to sort out their own problems or stay together.
    – No more money will be wasted by either the secularists or the religious on this battle because there is nothing to fight over. Think how much money and effort we’ve spent every single time on of these votes comes up to inform people and campaign!

    Some bring up the idea that without some legal State recognition of people’s relationships, people will just do whatever they want, so we need the State. But this is not based in the reality that people are already doing whatever they want without anyone’s approval – living together, having polygamous relationships, having non monogamous relationships, casual anonymous sex etc. They’re going to do it irregardless of Church or State. Furthermore, with the State out of it, who’s to say people won’t come up with their own social constructs? The Catholic Church regulates it’s own marriages. The Protestants theirs. The Muslims theirs. And the pagan and godless can invent their own social recognitions or lack thereof or they simply will do what they want anyway. The best point is, they can do nothing to violate what we do, and likewise we can always continue to convert them not by force of state, but by actual face to face debates and conversations about RELIGION and GOD, rather than sticking to the limitations of man made politics, legalities and economics just so we can behave like secularists!

    As for the argument about the care of children. I agree that the State has an interest in looking out for children. But you don’t need them involved in marriages to do so. All they need is something to legitimately recognize the parent/parents/guardians or the change thereof to provide the applicable tax breaks or whatever incentives come with it applied equally to everyone who has a child in their care.

    In the case of worrying about child marriage, it’s a simple case of laws against underaged sex (which will also fall one day at the way things are going). The State not recognizing marriages has nothing to do with it. A man calling himself married to a little girl is meaningless. If he is having sex with her, then whether they claim to be married or not is irrelevant, he has transgressed the law and that is punishable.

    The only way the State can reasonably be involved with marriage is in a Catholic Confessional State, or under a Catholic Monarchy. But a secular State is unable to meet this criteria by virtue of the fact it tries to appeal to everyone which will only lead to making marriage utterly meaningless. So one way or another, the State is going to rid itself of marriage, formally or by making it ideologically pointless that nobody even cares about it anymore and does what they want anyway.

  27. Sissy says:

    AnnAsher: When I say the state has an “interest”, I’m stating a legal fact. Our Constitutional system of laws recognizes the right of the various states to regulate certain aspects of family life for the reasons I mentioned. That kind of regulation falls within the purview of government, as does the police power, health regulation, and so forth. Our opinions about the appropriateness of that fact won’t change it. It’s our job as citizens to make sure state laws continue to recognize marriage for what it is, and not for what those bent on our destruction try to pervert it into.